Bush in B.C.: Canada Hosts a War Criminal

(source)

Article: Let the U.S. judge Bush (source)

There was a Canadian chill in the air when George W. Bush turned up in Surrey, B.C., on Thursday to speak to a business audience. A couple of hundred raucous protesters were on hand, chanting “Arrest George Bush” and urging the Mounties to clap the former U.S. president in irons.

“Complicit in torture,” one sign read. “Waterboard Bush.” “War criminals out of Canada.” And “Shame, shame, shame.”

The campaign to make Bush a pariah in this country seems to have legs. Groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are trying to shame the Canadian government into doing what the U.S. government won’t: To arrest and try Bush for authorizing the waterboarding of terror suspects when he next sets foot on our soil.

It’s a misguided demand that puts Prime Minister Stephen Harper and potentially other leaders needlessly on the spot.

. . . .

Posted Canadian Responses:

Re: Let the U.S. judge Bush, Editorial Oct. 22

You advocate that only the U.S. can hold their former president responsible for behaviour widely seen as criminal and which involved many foreign nationals and activities on many foreign shores. By this logic, Canada should never have extradited former SS guard Michael Seifert or any other Nazi war criminals, as their crimes did not take place in Canada.

Arresting and trying George W. Bush here would certainly be a slap in the face to our American friends and allies, this is true. So what Canada should do is give fair warning to Bush and the American government that he is not welcome here and would be arrested and turned over to the Hague if he enters Canada.

If that shames them then they should be shamed.

Rory McRandall, Bancroft

Even if one does accept the argument that George W. Bush should be prosecuted in the U.S., why was he given a green light into Canada? Numerous individuals have been denied entry at the border because of their association, sometimes quite tenuous, with subversion, violence or terrorism.

However, there is overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration was responsible for systematic abuses — kicking captives, confining them in boxes, depriving them of sleep and exposing them to cold temperatures, waterboarding, shackling them for prolonged periods, and threatening their families with ill-treatment.

You can bet your throwing booties that any former leader from Sudan, Iran or North Korea with that kind of record wouldn’t be in Canada giving speeches at $600-a-plate dinners.

Larry Kazdan, Vancouver

You’ve come up with some very logical and powerful arguments in support of this, primarily, being the responsibility of U.S. and not Canada to bring a villainous Dubya to book for his gross disrespect to international law and wanton violations of human rights. No reasonable person could disagree with you.

However, I’ve a small question. Would you be offering the very same cogent reasoning for not hauling up a foreign villain in Canadian courts had the person been, for the sake of argument, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran?

Karamatullah K. Ghori, Richmond Hill

Since when did human rights stop being a Canadian concern? When did Canada stop being concerned about justice and accountability?

Carol Rawson, Toronto

If Spanish prosecutors had a chance to read your “Let Bush Be” editorial, the murderous Augusto Pinochet of Chile would never have been arrested and brought to justice for his heinous crimes.

The reason Canada can’t arrest Bush is obvious: The U.S. would invade us or drain us economically.

But someone should arrest that devil. Respect for law, tradition and custom demands it.

Vito Cupoli, Toronto

You are right, “Americans who have a problem with their past president should deal with it.”

However, by the same token, Canada should stop encouraging George W. Bush to visit Canada, for launching his book, justifying “extraordinary rendition” techniques, or doing business with Americans solely on American terms.

I have his recent visits to Calgary, Alberta and Surrey, B.C. in mind!

Jalaluddin S. Hussain, Brossard, Que.

We and the rest of the signatories of the ICC don’t need to arrest Bush to punish him, we just have to advise him that we will if he shows up. I’m disappointed that Mr. Arrar didn’t use some of that money he received from the government of Canada to pursue a charge of extraordinary rendition against the Bush administration, and if accepted by the court, effectively imprison him in the U.S.

Gordon Deane, Mississauga

(source)

“In Gitmo, I was punished with 30 days in darkness for feeding iguanas”

Murat Kurnaz was arrested in the street and sent to Guantanamo Bay for torture. After five years, America released him without charge. To this day, the US has given no explanation or said sorry.

Guantanamo Bay continues to wreck lives, despite President Obama's pledge to shut the notorious prison. RT spoke to one former prisoner, Murat Kurnaz, who says the US has not issued even a simple apology for his years of torment.

Attempts to justify torture seem outrageous to those who have been unjustly subjected to inhumane treatment at US prisons overseas. Murat Kurnaz was captured in Pakistan in 2001. He was working for an NGO that helped young people there to quit drugs and adopt a healthier lifestyle. He was sent to Guantanamo and tortured – for five years. The vast majority of the hundreds of individuals who have been held at Guantanamo since 2002, just like Murat, are said to be of no intelligence value whatsoever. Some of them were children, when they were captured, like Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, who was just 15 when he was taken into US custody. He said because he was tortured, he was ready to say anything the torturers wanted to hear to stop the pain.

(source, source, source, source)

Also: Human Rights Watch report on evidence of torture (download pdf)

This systemic evil is truly monstrous and disgusting -- It must be stopped, investigated, and prosecuted IMMEDIATELY!

Update: This NEWS brings a little hope!

Egypt marks Intl. Day in Support of Victims of Torture

The International Day of Torture (June 26th) coincides with the trial of the former Interior Minister Habib el-Adly, where massive numbers of protesters and human rights activists gathered outside the court chanting anti-police slogans and demanding death penalty for the once widely feared interior minister.

Activists say International Day of Torture is an occasion for the world to speak up against the unspeakable. It is also a day dedicated to remembering and supporting the many victims of torture in Egypt and around the world.

[ENTIRE STORY AND VIDEO...]

I speak out about the pure evil of all torture! And for justice to those who authorize and perform it, no matter where they live or what their excuse may be!

Citizens Demand Full Investigation on US Torture Authorizations

The American Civil Liberties Union today urged Attorney General Eric Holder to ask Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate whether former President George W. Bush violated the federal statute prohibiting torture. The request, made in a letter sent to Holder, comes on the heels of the release of Bush’s memoir in which Bush admits he directly authorized the use of waterboarding on Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah. The Department of Justice has made clear that waterboarding is torture and, as such, a crime under the federal anti-torture statute.

The letter, signed by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, states, “In light of the admission by the former President, and the legally correct determination by the Department of Justice that waterboarding is a crime, you should ensure that Mr. Durham’s current investigation into detainee interrogations encompasses the conduct and decisions of former President Bush.”  

The letter states, “[T]he former President’s acknowledgment that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history. The admission cannot be ignored. In our system, no one is above the law or beyond its reach, not even a former president.”

The letter also points out that failure to investigate President Bush’s role in violating the torture statute would severely compromise America’s ability to advocate for human rights in other countries, and concludes, “A nation committed to the rule of law…cannot simply ignore evidence that its most senior leaders authorized torture.”

The full text of the letter can be found below:

(source)

Police Commander Convicted of Lying About Torture

We live in a sad time/era where torture is routinely, publicly rationalized and excused. But in this important landmark case, Justice, the Law, and basic Morality have prevailed against an evil man. America has risen to meet its moral standards once again!

Hopefully this trend will continue as justice is served to all those who have condoned and/or violated the international and basic laws of morality and humanity.

(source)

An Interview with the "Shoer"

Bio:
Muntadhar al-Zaidi was an Iraqi broadcast journalist who served as a correspondent for (Iraqi-owned, Egyptian-based) Al-Baghdadia TV. Al-Zaidi's reports often focused on the plight of widows, orphans, and children in the Iraq War. On November 16, 2007, al-Zaidi was kidnapped by unknown assailants in Baghdad. He was also previously twice arrested by the United States armed forces. On December 14, 2008, al-Zaidi shouted "this is for the widows and orphans" and threw his shoes at then-US president George W. Bush during a Baghdad press conference. Al-Zaidi suffered injuries as he was taken into custody and was tortured during his initial detention. There were calls throughout the Middle East to place the shoes in an Iraqi museum, but the shoes were later destroyed by American and Iraqi security forces. Al-Zaidi's shoeing inspired many similar incidents of political protest around the world. On February 20, 2009, al-Zaidi received a 90-minute trial by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. On March 12, 2009, he was sentenced to three years in prison for assaulting a foreign head of state during an official visit. On April 7 the sentence was reduced to one year from three years. He was released on 15 September 2009 for good behaviour, after serving nine months of the sentence.

Interview Segment Pt.2

(Watch all 4 segments here)

Documents show detainee was abused in US custody

By JILL LAWLESS (AP) (source1, source2)

LONDON — A British resident was beaten, shackled and threatened while in U.S. custody in Pakistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, according to a newly published summary of intelligence reports sent from the CIA to Britain's MI5 spy agency.

The information, released by a court Wednesday over the objections of the British government, shows that British officials knew as early as 2002 about the treatment of Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed — one of hundreds of young Muslim men scooped up around the world at the time.

The White House said the ruling would make intelligence sharing with Britain more difficult in the future.

The summary adds to growing evidence of Mohamed's mistreatment during his seven years in American custody. In November, a U.S. district judge in Washington found evidence of even harsher abuse while Mohamed was held in Morocco for two years before he was eventually moved to Guantanamo Bay and charged with plotting with al-Qaida to bomb American apartment buildings....

In a ruling in the District Court for the District of Columbia in November, Judge Gladys Kessler said Mohamed had been tortured over a period of two years while being interviewed by FBI and CIA agents.

She said Mohamed was beaten with a leather strap, subjected to mock execution, kept in darkness, deprived of sleep, drugged, hung by his wrists and "cut on the chest and then on the penis and the testicles with a scalpel (about once a month for over a year)."

She said the U.S. government "does not challenge or deny the accuracy of (Mohamed)'s story of brutal treatment."

America’s Secret Afghan Prisons

Investigation Unearths New US Torture Site, Abuse Allegations in Afghanistan

A new investigation by journalist Anand Gopal reveals harrowing details about US secret prisons in Afghanistan, under both the Bush and Obama administrations. Gopal interviewed Afghans who were detained and abused at several disclosed and undisclosed sites at US and Afghan military bases across the country. He also reveals the existence of another secret prison on Bagram Air Base that even the Red Cross does not have access to. It is dubbed the Black Jail and is reportedly run by US Special Forces. (source)

Human Rights Watch applies same standards to Israel, Hamas

By Kenneth Roth
10.27.2009
(source)

Critics of Human Rights Watch's work on Israel raise three main points. First, they say we disproportionately focus on Israel, and neglect other countries in the Middle East. Second, they claim our research methodology is flawed - relying on witnesses with an agenda. Third, as recently expressed by our founding chairman Robert Bernstein, they argue that we should focus on "closed" countries such as China rather than "open" societies like Israel.

I reject all three claims.

Human Rights Watch currently works on seventeen countries in the Middle East and North Africa, including Iran, Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Israel accounts for about 15 percent of our published output on the region. The Middle East and North Africa division is one of 16 research programs at Human Rights Watch and receives 5 percent of our total budget. Israel is a small fraction of what we do.

Our war coverage in the region has documented violations by all sides. No international human rights organization has done more to highlight the war crimes of Hezbollah and Hamas, challenging their leaders and the Arab public to think critically about the unlawful conduct of these groups. Our Civilian Protection Initiative, launched five years ago, has sought the support of Arab civil society leaders to discredit terrorist attacks.

The research methodology employed in these wars is the same we use around the world: in-depth private interviews with multiple witnesses. We corroborate their accounts with field visits, ballistics evidence, medical records and other means. Unfortunately, since late 2008, the Israel Defense Forces have refused to meet with us or answer any of our detailed written questions.

The problem of witness intimidation is not new, and we take it into account.

Contrary to the claims of some critics, in Gaza we found there were Palestinians who would speak about violations by Hamas. Palestinian victims and witnesses of abuse were the primary source for a report we published on Hamas torture and executions - a report cited publicly by the Israeli government.

We apply the same international human rights standards to all countries, open and closed. We work extensively on China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iran, but we also investigate abuses in the American criminal justice system, police killings in India, "disappearances" in Sri Lanka, and migrants' rights in Europe. All governments, regardless of their political system, are obliged to uphold the same international norms.

At the heart of our critics' arguments lies the view that we should hold Israel to lower standards. There is no dispute that the country was founded on the ashes of genocide and is surrounded by hostile states and armed groups. But some believe that these circumstances give Israel's democratic government the right to take whatever steps it deems necessary to keep the country safe.

A country's conditions do not remove its obligations under international law, though. Whether a state is an aggressor or acting in self-defense, whether it faces a regular army or insurgents that commit abuses, the laws of war apply, imposing a duty to minimize civilian harm.

And being a democratic country prevents Israel from committing wartime abuses no more than it stopped the United States from torture and unlawful detentions at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

The serious Israeli abuses we documented also put the country at greater risk. By failing to hold those responsible to account, Israel increases anger and resentment among the Palestinian population and in the wider Arab world, and undercuts moderates who wish to pursue peace.

Our critics have every right to challenge the substance of our findings on Israel or any other country, though they rarely find errors. But if they want to challenge repressive regimes and combat armed groups that terrorize civilians, they will not serve that cause by trying to exempt Israel from human rights laws that are the best defense against such abuse. Nor does it help to attack those organizations that are working to uphold those laws around the world.

The writer is executive director of Human Rights Watch.

Torture - is it Moral?

John Adams, one of the US founding fathers, said: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Last week, I talked about a religious majority approving torture in certain cases, according to a survey. I believe that religion and morality are closely related, and I think the topic of morality with respect to torture --especially human torture-- is a very important discussion for our nation.

But first, we briefly need to define what torture is/isn't. Personally, I'm not talking about mere "discomfort". Some definitions include:

• anguish: extreme mental distress
• unbearable physical pain
• agony: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain
• torment: torment emotionally or mentally (source)

Even just those words make me start to feel queasy inside. But I also know that a picture can speak a thousands words. So in case of any doubt, I have linked to a web page that shows several photos of torture victims in a US detention facility in Baghdad, Iraq. (WARNING: very graphic photographs) [Leaked Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos here] ** Of course, their mental scars are not so easily photographed.

There are hundreds of detainees being held in places around the world: Guantanamo Bay (aka "Gitmo"), Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and others. The vast majority of them (95% maybe?) have never been charged for anything, let alone being tried in a court of law or found guilty. (This fact quickly blurs into the topic of the legality of torture, which I'll blog about later.) But rest assured that many, many innocent --"until proven guilty", right?-- people were tortured by US policies and employees. See the latest story: Rather interviews Boumediene. Here's another sourced article. And this torture scene hasn't stopped yet.

Not quite "moral" conduct, wouldn't you agree?

And what about the guilty ones? Does there still exist a moral argument that could justify the guilty to be inflicted with more than a punitive ruling of repayment, incarceration, detention, rehabilitation, or even death? In fact, the death sentence seems to be the most extreme punishment by our US federal and military justice system -- both past and present, terrorist or otherwise.

But isn't torture even worse than death?

I wonder if anyone sees an argument left to defend the idea that torturing anyone --innocent or guilty-- is remotely ethical or moral?

** Note also the big controversy about Obama rescinding his promise to release more photographs of alleged torturing by US authorities.

Is There Justification for Torture?

More and more news of the US torturing (or "enhanced interrogations") programs are reaching headlines. The debate is fierce, as political opponents pick their sides and dig in their heels.

But I personally don't see this as a partisan issue at all. I see it as an issue of basic human rights, mixed with notions of "security," "justice," "punishment," and perhaps "war".

I'd like to begin by discussing an article from CNN called Torture prompts soul-searching among some Christians. The article states:

A survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that white evangelical Christians are more likely to support torture than people who rarely or never attend religious services. The survey said that 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants say that the use of torture against suspected terrorists can be often or sometimes justified in order to gain important information. . . .

How can a Christian support torture? They can't -- except in extreme circumstances, some evangelicals say.

I encourage you to read the article. This survey's results totally baffled me as I wondered how any "good Christian" could justify the use of torture against anyone - suspected terrorist or otherwise - for any possible or even hypothetical reason? I must be missing something here because, apparently, I'm in the minority.

I have my own ideas and opinions as to why these views exist, and I'll be following up in the next days and weeks. But first I'd rather hear from you.

Do you believe there is justification for torture? Why/why not?